More Misleading and Unethical Advertising for Alternative Veterinary Medicine:

Dr. Karen Becker, a prominent CAVM vet who writes for one of the most notorious sites promoting quackery through denigrating conventional medicine, Mercola.com, recently blogged about the much-reported decline in veterinary office visits. In this article, she makes a number of assumptions for which there is little or no evidence, and several accusations about the inadequacy of conventional veterinary care.

----------

"For some reason the methods used to maintain a pet’s vibrant good health – everything from species-appropriate nutrition to maintenance chiropractic care to homeopathic remedies and herbal supplements – fall into the category of ‘alternative medicine.’

Isn’t it strange that natural modalities used not to cure illness (although they do that, too), but to maintain health are thought of as ‘alternative,’ yet chemical drugs and invasive surgery are considered mainstream health care?"

Actually, it isn’t strange at all. There is no reliable scientific evidence for the preventative health benefits of maintenance chiropractic care, homeopathic remedies or herbal supplements. These products are touted as “wellness” care based solely on the personal beliefs of the vets who use them and the beliefs of previous generations of vets and animal owners. This is the same level of evidence that has supported such winning strategies as bloodletting, purging, and animal sacrifice as preventative health measures.

There are countless ways rabies vaccination can harm your dog – often permanently. I’m going to tell you about just 65 of those ways below.

As a holistic veterinarian, our outdated rabies vaccination laws are one of the things that upset me the most. All over the US and in most of Canada, the law requires you to vaccinate your dog against rabies every three years. In most US states your dog’s first rabies vaccine must be a one year shot, with revaccination every three years after that.

None of these laws take into account the real duration of immunity of rabies vaccines, Studies by Ronald Schultz PhD show that rabies vaccines protet for a minimum of 7 years – and probably for the life of the animal.

And neither do the thousands of veterinarians in the US who are still vaccinating annually for rabies. They do this despite the fact that annual vaccination is neither required by law nor recommended by the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) Guidelines.

If you think about it, the vaccines contain the live virus, albeit modified, and they are designed to weaken the dog’s immune system, as that is how they are supposed to work – well, that’s the theory. And if that weren’t bad enough, many vaccines contain multiple viruses – anywhere from four to seven or eight at a time.

Finally, and perhaps most worrying of all, is the fact that research has now shown that all vaccinations, not just Parvo ones, can weaken your dog’s immune system. This means that your dog will be more likely to become ill in the future.

Other side-effects of vaccinations include chronic inflammation, which will cause the obvious issues such as arthritis, but inflammation has now been proven to be a leading cause of cancer.

According to Dr Larry Glickman and his team at Purdue University, serum and foreign proteins in vaccines can cause autoimmunity (i.e. cancer, leukaemia, organ failure, etc.). This research also indicates that genetic damage is possible, since vaccinated dogs developed autoantibodies to attack their own DNA. Research from the University of Geneva echoes this finding.

Over the years, many vets, particularly in America, have been saying that they think vaccines cause a diverse range of problems in animals. For example, Christine Chambreau DVM said, ‘Routine vaccinations are probably the worst thing we do for our animals. They cause all types of illnesses but not directly to where we would relate them definitely to be caused by the vaccine.’ She is not alone in this view

Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted.

At around the same time, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA develop terminal cancer at their

vaccine injection sites.3 The fact that cats can get vaccine-induced cancer has been acknowledged by veterinary bodies around the world, and even the British Government acknowledged it through its Working Group charged with the task of looking into canine and feline vaccines4 following pressure from Canine Health Concern. What do you imagine was the advice of the AVMA Task Force, veterinary bodies and governments? "Carry on vacci­nating until we find out why vaccines are killing cats, and which cats are most likely to die."

In America, in an attempt to mitigate the problem, they're vac­cinating cats in the tail or leg so they can amputate when cancer appears. Great advice if it's not your cat amongst the hundreds of thousands on the "oops" list.

Many pet owners have connected the increased usage of GMOs with what appears to be an increase of tumors and health issues in dogs and cats.

— By Dr. Michael W. Fox*

Dogs and cats, like the proverbial canaries down the mine shafts, have become our sentinels. They alert us to health hazards in the home-environments we share and in the products and by-products of the same agribusiness food industry that feeds most of us and them. In the mid 1990s I began to suspect diet may play a role in a “cluster” of health problems not seen nearly as often as when dogs and cats were being fed conventional corn and soy. Since that time I have formed the professional opinion that there is sufficient proof from evidence based medicine that dietary ingredients derived from GM crops are not safe for companion animals, and by extension, for human consumers either.

Our companion animals bring such joy and comfort to our lives. They are always there to greet us with a happy welcome home. Pets – like people – are suffering from unprecedented increased health risks including cancer and other debilitating diseases and disorders. Animal studies on animals fed genetically modified food have shown organ damage, potential pre-cancerous cell growth, damaged immune systems, allergies and more due to GM food. Switching to non-GMO and/or organic diets can help reduce the risk of health problems, assist our pets in recovery and support them to enjoy a longer life span . This website is a resource for pet owners to learn more about the health risks of GMOs and pesticides in pet food, and to provide information on healthier alternatives.

If you think about it, the vaccines contain the live virus, albeit modified, and they are designed to weaken the dog’s immune system, as that is how they are supposed to work – well, that’s the theory. And if that weren’t bad enough, many vaccines contain multiple viruses – anywhere from four to seven or eight at a time.

Finally, and perhaps most worrying of all, is the fact that research has now shown that all vaccinations, not just Parvo ones, can weaken your dog’s immune system. This means that your dog will be more likely to become ill in the future.

Other side-effects of vaccinations include chronic inflammation, which will cause the obvious issues such as arthritis, but inflammation has now been proven to be a leading cause of cancer.

According to Dr Larry Glickman and his team at Purdue University, serum and foreign proteins in vaccines can cause autoimmunity (i.e. cancer, leukaemia, organ failure, etc.). This research also indicates that genetic damage is possible, since vaccinated dogs developed autoantibodies to attack their own DNA. Research from the University of Geneva echoes this finding.

Over the years, many vets, particularly in America, have been saying that they think vaccines cause a diverse range of problems in animals. For example, Christine Chambreau DVM said, ‘Routine vaccinations are probably the worst thing we do for our animals. They cause all types of illnesses but not directly to where we would relate them definitely to be caused by the vaccine.’ She is not alone in this view

Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted.

At around the same time, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA develop terminal cancer at their

vaccine injection sites.3 The fact that cats can get vaccine-induced cancer has been acknowledged by veterinary bodies around the world, and even the British Government acknowledged it through its Working Group charged with the task of looking into canine and feline vaccines4 following pressure from Canine Health Concern. What do you imagine was the advice of the AVMA Task Force, veterinary bodies and governments? "Carry on vacci­nating until we find out why vaccines are killing cats, and which cats are most likely to die."

In America, in an attempt to mitigate the problem, they're vac­cinating cats in the tail or leg so they can amputate when cancer appears. Great advice if it's not your cat amongst the hundreds of thousands on the "oops" list.

As I explained in the other thread, Glyphosate, a/k/a Roundup, sprayed on conventional and gmo crops has been found in vaccines. (See my posts from Samsel and Moms Across America). The same ingredients are used in making all vaccines, including vaccines for our pets.

You can check out facebook pages for Dr. Karen Becker, DVM and Dr. John Robb, DVM, Dogs Naturally and many others.

“large numbers of circulating antibodies, a high titer, is a good thing.”

No, a high titer indicates overdosing and over vaccination!

Yes, we are entering into a new era by checking circulating antibodies, a blood titer, to protect the pets.This is occurring because pet owners are educating each other to drive the change.

Since it’s known that vaccines cause adverse events, some of which lead to death, pet owners are demanding change and want vaccination protocols do be done in the safest manner possible.

This means the lowest dose and lowest number of vaccines to produce protection, easily measured by a blood titer, and stop there!

The blood titer is the only correlate with immunity, and there is no medical benefit to repeatedly vaccinating pets who already have achieved immunity and pushing the titer higher.It’s malpractice to put a pet at risk of sickness or death injecting them with a booster vaccines that have no medical benefit!

When Titers are as Karlee’s > 15 IU/ML it shows their immune system has been assaulted by over vaccination. A pet with a titer of 0.1 IU/Ml, the lowest level of circulating rabies antibodies we can measure, is immune to rabies.It’s YES or NO, Immune or not.

Pushing a titer to greater than 15 IU/Ml by repeatedly boosting with vaccines, does not make the pet more immune but it will sicken the pet with immune mediated disease, cancer, neurological disease, behavioral changes, chronic allergies and some will die- all due to dis-regulation of the immune system from over vaccination.

Pet owners who trusted the veterinary establishment were indoctrinated into a system of animal abuse by overdosing, over vaccinating and inappropriately vaccinating pets for pure profit motives. This has gone on for more than 30 years!!

2018 will see tremendous change as pet owners are taking this situation into their own hands, enlightened by the truth, to protect the pets! Doc”

Please Welcome Dr. Hayek a great new addition from the state of Texas!

Amy Hayek

What inspired you to join PTP?

At Animal Chiropractic Education Source we teach doctors through Animal Chiropractic why vaccines are often not only UN-necessary for animal health but also detrimental to the nervous system of the animal. We have recommended titers for years, and have written vaccine waivers for more than that. Find out more-

World Renowned Dr. Jean Dodds Joins the Growing List of Veterinarians Uniting to Protect The Pets!

While we have been taught the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”, our initial education and continuing education continues to embrace overdosing vaccines for tiny pets, over-vaccination when not needed, and inappropriate vaccination for pets known to be at risk for adverse effects (vaccinosis). In my opinion, this stems primarily from the misguided opinion that regular booster vaccinations are needed and innocuous, while sustaining practice viability from reminding clients to seek regular veterinary preventive care and checkups for their pets.

When I began practicing in 1985, I believed vaccines caused no harm. But with time it became apparent there were problems. I reached out to Dr. Dodds in the late 80’s and early 90’s. She revealed the facts-based truth and legitimized my concerns. I know she has helped countless vets to stand up for the truth and live their Oath. Dr. Dodds has and continues to help untold number of pet owners protect their pets!

It’s a proud day for all! Please officially welcome Dr. Dodds to the Protect The Pets Movement!

Some excellent data showing one rabies vaccine, followed by serial Titers. Not one pet needed another vaccine! The Titers never dropped below 0.1 IU/ml! One rabies vaccine can give protection for life!

The key is safe vaccination- lowest dose and one vaccine- produce a protective titer, and stop there! Periodically check the circulating antibodies, a blood titer. As long as it’s 0.1 IU/ml or greater, never vaccinate again. The pet is immune and can’t get rabies!

As I explained in the other thread, Glyphosate, a/k/a Roundup, sprayed on conventional and gmo crops has been found in vaccines. (See my posts from Samsel and Moms Across America). The same ingredients are used in making all vaccines, including vaccines for our pets.

You can check out facebook pages for Dr. Karen Becker, DVM and Dr. John Robb, DVM, Dogs Naturally and many others.

Stephanie Seneff, MIT Scientist is a great page to follow as well.

Campaign group Moms Across America (MAAM) has announced that a study it commissioned found tiny traces of glyphosate in five vaccines: influenza, MMR, pneumococcal, hepatitis B and T Dap.

However, the testing method used by MAAM’s contractor, St. Louis-based company Microbe Inotech, has been challenged by experts as it is not accurate when measuring anything at very low concentrations.

These experts – including Peter Davies, emeritus professor of plant biology at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York – warn against the testing method called ELISA, which is short for enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

ELISA is a fast method for determining the concentrations of chemicals by using a pairing of radioactive labeled antibodies. Often used for determining levels of cholesterol in blood, the test is not, however, accurate at measuring anything in the low parts per billion.

Professor Davies says the more accurate methods of measuring volumes in such a minute range would be techniques called gas chromatography and mass spectronomy, or GC/MS. Chemicals are ionized and the then-electrically charged chemical is measured by its mass and charge. This is a long and expensive procedure, but extremely accurate.

Everything that regulatory agencies and scientists know about glyphosate show the outcome of the MAAM-commissioned study is extremely questionable.

In an interview with the Genetic Literacy Project, Davies said: ‘At 1-10 parts per billion it is easy to think you are analysing a specific compound when in fact you are tracing some other compound. So unless I saw the full mass spectra to at least two decimal places I would say that glyphosate is not proven, and few labs have that degree of sophistication.

‘ELISA is notoriously susceptible to interference by the presence of other compounds, both in the positive and negative direction, and while fine for a first approximation, it is not acceptable for a definitive measurement. No top ranked journal in the field accepts ELISA as definitive proof for small molecules unless accompanied by further proof. The gold standard is multiple ion mass spectrometry.’

ELISA was developed as a fast and inexpensive way to screen water samples to decide on whether further testing would be required. A positive result on water in an ELISA test simply indicates that a more expensive and complicated test is required for confirmation as this method has been know to produce false positives. This screening test has been shown to be effective when used on water, but not food, beverages, or vaccines.

The MAAM study has not been released for review and has not appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific publication, another gold standard for assessing credibility. Instead, its results were shared online without supporting peer reviewed publication and were picked up by activist sites such as Natural News and Vaccine-Injury Info. This was supported by Stephanie Seneff and Anthony Samel, two scientists known for papers alleging the dangers of glyphosate – blaming it for causing illnesses ranging from Alzheimer’s to cancer, all claims that have been debunked by independent studies and regulators.

Previous claims by Seneff and Samel have been discredited by glyphosate studies using the preferred mass spectrometry instead of the ELISA method, including an independent report in 2016 by scientists affiliated with the independent German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which does risk assessments for the European Commission. BfR joined both the US Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority in finding no harm from glyphosate.

As well as being extensively reviewed and approved for use, glyphosate (a herbicide that inhibits a pathway found in plants but NOT in humans or animals) has a 40-year history of safe use.

Everything that regulatory agencies and scientists know about glyphosate shows the stated outcome of the MAAM-commissioned study is extremely unlikely. Glyphosate is either not present in vaccines, or is at such low levels as to be undetectable using the ELISA method. There is no credible evidence demonstrating the presence of glyphosate in vaccines.

Senef attended MIT, earning her bachelor of science in biophysics, a master's in electrical engineering, and a doctoral degree in computer science.

In 2011, Seneff began publishing research on topics related to biology and medicine in low-impact, open access journals, such as Interdisciplinary Toxicology and eight papers in the journal Entropy between 2011 and 2015. According to food columnist Ari LeVaux, Seneff's work in this area has made her "a controversial figure in the scientific community" and she has received "heated objections from experts in most every field she’s delved into". In 2013, she coauthored a paper that associated the herbicide glyphosate with a wide variety of diseases such as cancer and disorders such as autism. Discover magazine writer Keith Kloor criticized the uncritical republication of the study's results by other media outlets. Jerry Steiner, the executive vice president of sustainability at Monsanto, said in an interview regarding the study that "We are very confident in the long track record that glyphosate has. It has been very, very extensively studied." Seneff's claim that glyphosate is a major cause of autism and that, "At today’s rates, by 2025, half the kids born will be diagnosed with autism," has also been criticized. For example, the Pacific Standard noted that, contrary to Seneff's claims, many scientific reviews have found that the rise in autism rates over the past 20 years is due to changes in diagnostic practices, and that a number of studies, including a 2012 review in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, have found little evidence that glyphosate is associated with adverse development outcomes.

Seneff and her MIT colleagues have also done research on the health impacts of fat and cholesterol consumption in America. Based on this research, Seneff claimed that Americans are suffering from a cholesterol deficiency, not an excess. In 2014-2016 Seneff served as an expert witness for litigators seeking damages from Pfizer associated with their cholesterol drug Lipitor.

On June 14, 2016 Dr. Seneff and six other researchers presented their studies on Capitol Hill in a meeting incorrectly touted as a Congressional hearing. Presenters claimed that the US, with 5% of world's population, consumes 50% of the world's drugs and that US citizens consumed 25% of world supply of glyphosate.

Response from scientists and academics:Clinical neurologist and skeptic Steven Novella criticized Seneff's Entropy publication for making "correlation is causation" assumptions using broad statistical extrapolations from limited data, saying "she has published only speculations and gives many presentations, but has not created any new data". Scientists and scholars such as Derek Lowe, a medicinal chemist, and Jeffrey Beall, a library scientist known for his criticism of predatory open access publishers, have separately criticized Seneff's paper for misrepresenting the results and conclusions of other researchers' work. Lowe and Beall also noted that Entropy and its publisher, MDPI, have a known history of publishing studies without merit.

A 2017 Review Article written by Kings College of London researchers and published by Frontiers in Public Health called Seneff's glyphosate health-risk research claims "a deductive reasoning approach based on syllogism" and "at best unsubstantiated theories, speculations or simply incorrect." And, Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen characterized Seneff and her glyphosate claims as "nutty," "truly unhinged," and "dangerous."

More Misleading and Unethical Advertising for Alternative Veterinary Medicine:

Dr. Karen Becker, a prominent CAVM vet who writes for one of the most notorious sites promoting quackery through denigrating conventional medicine, Mercola.com, recently blogged about the much-reported decline in veterinary office visits. In this article, she makes a number of assumptions for which there is little or no evidence, and several accusations about the inadequacy of conventional veterinary care.

----------

"For some reason the methods used to maintain a pet’s vibrant good health – everything from species-appropriate nutrition to maintenance chiropractic care to homeopathic remedies and herbal supplements – fall into the category of ‘alternative medicine.’

Isn’t it strange that natural modalities used not to cure illness (although they do that, too), but to maintain health are thought of as ‘alternative,’ yet chemical drugs and invasive surgery are considered mainstream health care?"

Actually, it isn’t strange at all. There is no reliable scientific evidence for the preventative health benefits of maintenance chiropractic care, homeopathic remedies or herbal supplements. These products are touted as “wellness” care based solely on the personal beliefs of the vets who use them and the beliefs of previous generations of vets and animal owners. This is the same level of evidence that has supported such winning strategies as bloodletting, purging, and animal sacrifice as preventative health measures.

A test pet owners can do at home. If your dog's urine kills the grass, put your pet on non gmo pet food (Trader Joe's) for a month and see the difference. Also, if your cats are vomiting pet food frequently, like several times a week, if you buy non gmo, the vomiting will stop. If gmo (glyphosate) in our food kills grass, what is it doing to our and our pet's health?

Scientist Anthony Samsel tells a story of how he got interested in studying gmo (glyphosate) in food. He was trying to keep some pests out of his garden, so he used his own urine. He was surprised to see that his urine killed the grass.

December 6, 2015 interview...

Tony: "Apart from the food that we are eating, if it is sprayed on grassland, if it is sprayed over forests where humans will not eat things, but others - insects, worms, birds, deer and moose, ...can they too have the wrong building block in their biology?"

Anthony: "Yes, yes, yes. Glyphosate is a synthetic amino acid. It mimics the natural amino acid glycine, and yes all life forms will be affected. All life forms will be negatively affected by this chemical. This chemical should not be in any biology. This chemical should not be manufactured, should not be used, this operation needs to be shut down lock, stock, and barrel."

"When chemicals are mixed with other chemicals often there is synergistic effects unknown consequences...Nobody's using organic feed stock...

...both Seralini and i have shown that their controls are contaminated...

They added in so that any results that showed that glyphosate caused a particular type of cancer or affect, was zeroed out and so that is how they were able to tell the EPA that glyphosate is harmless by the use of historical controls. That practice needs to be banned in science.

The industry doesn't want this discussed. The government doesn't want this discussed. The Obama Administration, the Bush Administration, they were promoting biotechnology, this is part of this country's economic engine and when you start treading on people's toes in this area, you are interfering with vast fortunes that are being developed.

They had the EPA seal those documents so that no one would ever revisit them and look at the hard evidence."

At 1:02:00 Regarding spraying non-gmo crops (non gmo corn)"...and I'm looking at the changes that the herbicide induces in the plant itself, and glyphosate herbicide, all the herbicides for that matter, induce changes in the plant...it dies, but in the process of dying it also changes its chemistry...and so I have a result that shows how glyphosate influences the mineral composition of the non gm corn in the death state, so if you go through and dessicate a crop, spray a crop prior to harvest, that's not a genetically engineered crop, you're changing it's mineral content, its fatty acid content and its vitamin content. You're altering it. So these things are going into our diet as well. I mean when they spray wheat or they spray barley or oates, they're crossing changes in the food itself. It's like microwaving your food. It's unhealthy to microwave your food because it changes the chemical structure of the food. That's why the Russians banned microwave ovens...when you start messing with fatty acids you can make a food unhealthy to eat...if they are out of balance, it's going to become inflamatory to your biology and I've seen this in some of the genetically engineered varieties."

Did you see the latest indictment of Monsanto making the rounds? It’s a “peer-reviewed” paper in the journal Entropy, co-authored by Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, blaming glyphosate, the compound in the herbicide Roundup, for virtually all the ills that can befall us.

But here’s the thing — they made it up. Or, all but. They say, “We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is a ‘textbook example’ of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins.” Exogenous semiotic entropy! That sounds serious. Google it, though, and you find that those three words occur together in only place. This paper. They made it up. At first, I thought the whole thing was one of those jargon-laden academic hoaxes but, alas, it isn’t.

Remember Stephanie Seneff? When last Orac discussed her, she had been caught dumpster diving into the VAERS database in order to torture the data to make it confess a “link” between aluminum adjuvants in vaccines and acetaminophen and—you guessed it!—autism. It was a bad paper in a bad journal known as Entropy that I deconstructed in detail around two years ago. As I said at the time, I hadn’t seen a “review” article that long and that badly done since the even more horrible article by Helen Ratajczak entitled Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes–A review (which, not surprisingly, was cited approvingly by Seneff et al). Seneff, it turns out, is an MIT scientist, but she is not a scientist with any expertise in autism, epidemiology, or, for that matter, any relevant scientific discipline that would give her the background knowledge and skill set to take on analyzing the epidemiological literature regarding autism. Indeed, she is in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT, and her web page there describes her thusly:

"Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She received the B.S. degree in Biophysics in 1968, the M.S. and E.E. degrees in Electrical Engineering in 1980, and the Ph.D degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1985, all from MIT. For over three decades, her research interests have always been at the intersection of biology and computation: developing a computational model for the human auditory system, understanding human language so as to develop algorithms and systems for human computer interactions, as well as applying natural language processing (NLP) techniques to gene predictions. She has published over 170 refereed articles on these subjects, and has been invited to give keynote speeches at several international conferences. She has also supervised numerous Master’s and PhD theses at MIT. In 2012, Dr. Seneff was elected Fellow of the International Speech and Communication Association (ISCA).

In recent years, Dr. Seneff has focused her research interests back towards biology. She is concentrating mainly on the relationship between nutrition and health. Since 2011, she has written over a dozen papers (7 as first author) in various medical and health-related journals on topics such as modern day diseases (e.g., Alzheimer, autism, cardiovascular diseases), analysis and search of databases of drug side effects using NLP techniques, and the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health."

So what we have here is a computer scientist interested in artificial intelligence who thinks she can switch her expertise to medicine, biology, and epidemiology. Let’s just put it this way. An undergraduate degree in biophysics in 1968 does not qualify one to do this sort of research, and, as I discussed in her foray into autism and vaccine epidemiology, it really does show. Badly. The paper was so embarrassingly incompetent that I’m surprised any journal was willing to publish it.

Lots has happened since then, they've written more Papers. The newest one on bile acids, which will be of interest to those folks who have lost their gall bladders is coming out this year.

Also, I've posted Seneff's credentials many times. She is a genius. She has always been interested in biology.

You need to consider the sources and who is funding them. Seneff's work is funded by a computer company. You can search back in the other thread and find the video where she explains her funding source, her interests, her transition BACK to biology and WHY she made that transition.

Samsel is retired, self funds his own research and takes donations from the PUBLIC.

Pustai: If you go back and look at Pustai's story, you'll see who funded his study and what happened to him when he tried to publish the results of his gmo research that the company that hired him didn't like. They destroyed his career. He was, like Seralini, exhonerated and was finally able to get his Paper published. (The same thing happened to Tyrone Hayes, look under "Frogs.")

Do you notice Seralini's 2017 study that showed that the "other" ingredients in glyphosate is 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate. Did you take the time to read and watch any of the information I posted?

I could spend all night listing the scientists for you but I've already done that in the other thread and I'm not redoing the work for someone who will never believe it anyways. The second article you listed is so unprofessional and just nasty. Nasty and mean, that's all they have. They can't show us any independent, non industry funded science proving their food is safe.

Folks figure it out when they or their kids become ill. As I did, they research, change their family's diet and see what happens for themselves. This is how Moms Across America got started, by mothers whose children had severe reactions to food and they wanted to know why. This is why there is such a huge movement in the world to stop gmo seed, food, and all poisons sprayed on our food. Us Mothers did the research, made the changes and we healed ourselves and our children. This is why you see all sorts of products in stores now with the Non-Gmo Verified Butterfly logo. This is why you see the organic sections growing at grocery stores. Even Wal-Mart couldn't ignore the movement and they wanted in on the big money too, so Wal-Mart has their own organic line. Aldis is carry new organics all the time: milk, cereal, eggs, bread, pizza. Duh, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that consumers drive what grocers carry in their stores.

Believe me, this is NOT something I enjoy doing. It is complicated, time consuming and when you finally get the big picture, it affects your outlook on life.

You have a right to believe what you want. If you want to eat gmo food and inject toxic vaccines into your body, go for it and good luck. But if you start to sneeze a lot, get an allergy, a rash on your skin, pain in your stomach, heart burn, prediabetic systems, chrones, IBS, to list just a few, you might want to read a little more than the garbage you listed above.

There is no one size fits all protocol. It takes a morally sound educated Veterinarian and an informed pet owner to look at each pets circumstances and risk factors to determine the best vaccination protocol.

Single antigen injections is key. For puppies for instance, they should only get a single antigen Parvovirus injection and a single antigen distemper vaccine, just like rabies is single antigen.

Just as with human infants, puppies and kittens should be home bodies for the early part of their life. Their immune system must develop and mature before being put in situations that could expose them to infections disease or be given vaccinations.

The worst places to take a puppy or kitten would be places that large numbers of cats and dogs congregate, including dog parks and veterinary hospitals. Obviously if there is a medical need, this changes the risk factors, and common sense always enters into the equation.

I know this post will cause confusion and questions but a paradigm shift is needed here. We have all been indoctrinated and the truth must now prevail. Protect the pets! Doc

What inspired you to join PTP? “I see vaccinations as the #1 predictor of serious chronic disease in our animals. If I can help spread the word on that via PTP, perhaps more can be cautioned before irreparable harm is done.”

drfalconer@VitalAnimal.com&#8236;

Dr. Michael Dym, Classical Homeopathy, Florida

What inspired you to join PTP? “Raising awareness of the truth on vaccines including short and long time side effects as well as vaccine titers as alternatives, in addition to medical exemptions.”

&#8234;www.doctordym.com&#8236;

Dr. Katie Smithson, Chattanooga Holistic Animal Institute, Tennessee

What inspired you to join PTP? “Over-vaccination is a serious threat to the health and well-being of my patients. While I certainly feel that vaccination is necessary, the current laws need to be addressed in order to both protect public health and the health of the pets.”

&#8234;chaiholisticvet@gmail.com&#8236;

Dr. Krista Lorenz, Pawsitively Holistic Veterinary Care, Montana

What inspired you to join PTP? “Being one that never did like to stick to ‘conventional wisdom’, I started my holistic journey one year out of vet school and I haven’t looked back since. That was 20 years ago!”

Karen Shaw Becker is the most followed veterinarian in the world, and for good reason. Dr Becker believes in a deliberate, common sense approach to creating and maintaining vibrant health for companion animals and an unconventional, integrative approach to addressing disease and re-establishing wellbeing in ill pets.

What inspired you to join PTP? “I have recommended titers my entire career, I am not a conventional vet &#128521;”

What inspired you to join PTP? “Because I truly signed up for "above all do no harm' and I love helping pets.”

drbrendas@gmail.com

Dr. Schultz knows. He has done the research!

“In the United States, most localities require revaccination of adult pets at yearly or triennial intervals, without regard forthe patient's antibody status. This represents a scientifically flawed approach! The main objective of vaccination mustbe to safely provide protection from disease, and should not be done to simply meet administrative requirements ordeadlines.”

Although Exemptions are important, by Amending the Rabies Law to accept measuring circulating antibodies, a blood titer, in lieu of repeated mandated rabies boosters, this poor dog with bladder cancer would not have needed an exemption.

Also this Veterinarian was not following the manufacturer’s recommendation, to only vaccinate healthy dogs!

Just ignore the trolls, their goal is to keep you from reading my posts, because if you read my posts and learn how you and your pets are being poisoned, you won't buy their poisons.

It's all about the money. We the people have the power and that power is OUR money and how we spend it.

This is how we get them to make the changes. Speak out with your money.

-------------

Dr. John Robb - Protect the Pets

Puppy and kitten vaccine protocol.

There is no one size fits all protocol. It takes a morally sound educated Veterinarian and an informed pet owner to look at each pets circumstances and risk factors to determine the best vaccination protocol.

Single antigen injections is key. For puppies for instance, they should only get a single antigen Parvovirus injection and a single antigen distemper vaccine, just like rabies is single antigen.

Just as with human infants, puppies and kittens should be home bodies for the early part of their life. Their immune system must develop and mature before being put in situations that could expose them to infections disease or be given vaccinations.

The worst places to take a puppy or kitten would be places that large numbers of cats and dogs congregate, including dog parks and veterinary hospitals. Obviously if there is a medical need, this changes the risk factors, and common sense always enters into the equation.

I know this post will cause confusion and questions but a paradigm shift is needed here. We have all been indoctrinated and the truth must now prevail. Protect the pets! Doc

More Vets join the Movement

Dr. Thomas Fredenhagen, Kingsley Animal Hospital, Florida.

What inspired you to join PTP? “We are more concerned about the animals health, and doing less vaccinations. We see a regression of the pets health because of too much vaccinating!”

What inspired you to join PTP? “I see vaccinations as the #1 predictor of serious chronic disease in our animals. If I can help spread the word on that via PTP, perhaps more can be cautioned before irreparable harm is done.”

&#8234;drfalconer@VitalAnimal.com&#8236;

Dr. Michael Dym, Classical Homeopathy, Florida

What inspired you to join PTP? “Raising awareness of the truth on vaccines including short and long time side effects as well as vaccine titers as alternatives, in addition to medical exemptions.”

&#8234;www.doctordym.com&#8236;

Dr. Katie Smithson, Chattanooga Holistic Animal Institute, Tennessee

What inspired you to join PTP? “Over-vaccination is a serious threat to the health and well-being of my patients. While I certainly feel that vaccination is necessary, the current laws need to be addressed in order to both protect public health and the health of the pets.”

&#8234;chaiholisticvet@gmail.com&#8236;

Dr. Krista Lorenz, Pawsitively Holistic Veterinary Care, Montana

What inspired you to join PTP? “Being one that never did like to stick to ‘conventional wisdom’, I started my holistic journey one year out of vet school and I haven’t looked back since. That was 20 years ago!”

Karen Shaw Becker is the most followed veterinarian in the world, and for good reason. Dr Becker believes in a deliberate, common sense approach to creating and maintaining vibrant health for companion animals and an unconventional, integrative approach to addressing disease and re-establishing wellbeing in ill pets.

What inspired you to join PTP? “I have recommended titers my entire career, I am not a conventional vet &#128521;”

What inspired you to join PTP? “Because I truly signed up for "above all do no harm' and I love helping pets.”

drbrendas@gmail.com

Dr. Schultz knows. He has done the research!

“In the United States, most localities require revaccination of adult pets at yearly or triennial intervals, without regard forthe patient's antibody status. This represents a scientifically flawed approach! The main objective of vaccination mustbe to safely provide protection from disease, and should not be done to simply meet administrative requirements ordeadlines.”

Although Exemptions are important, by Amending the Rabies Law to accept measuring circulating antibodies, a blood titer, in lieu of repeated mandated rabies boosters, this poor dog with bladder cancer would not have needed an exemption.

Also this Veterinarian was not following the manufacturer’s recommendation, to only vaccinate healthy dogs!

Just ignore the trolls, their goal is to keep you from reading my posts, because if you read my posts and learn how you and your pets are being poisoned, you won't buy their poisons.

You're confusing trolling with vetting standards of the scientific process and full disclosure of those who are skirting their medical, scientific and legal obligations. Practitioners of such pseudoscience should be exposed for what they are, and those who skirt the laws of their respective communities, clearly fit that definition.

Example:• Dr. John Robb was arrested then sued by the owners of the franchise he operates for trespassing and providing doses of rabies vaccines at a low level that was in clear violation of policies established by the franchise. Dr. Robb, who after a 4 year battle with regulators, was given veterinary license probation. He is not allowed to vaccinate any animal for rabies for 25 years. In addition, for the following 18 months, he was required to practice under the supervision of a colleague approved by the state board regulatory agency.

The reason for his censure revolves around the question of dose size of rabies vaccine in respect to the size of the animal. For example, should a Chihuahua get the same size rabies vaccine as a Great Dane? The common sense answer would seem to be “no”. However most immunologists and veterinarians who understand immunology would disagree. Why? Dr. Ronald Shultz, longtime researcher of vaccines at Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine, discussed this topic in the Journal of Small Animal Practice. “Unlike pharmaceuticals that are dose-dependent, vaccines are not based on volume per body mass (size), but rather on the minimum immunizing dose. “ Dozens of years of research has determined pets need a certain minimum amount of rabies vaccine to stimulate the immune system to protect against disease. The immune system of a small dog and a large dog need the same size dose in order to tell the immune system “Hey! There is a virus here! Let’s protect against this.” In fact, if the Chihuahua has a poor immune system he may need a larger amount of vaccine to obtain the same level of protection as the Great Dane. If one were to give a lesser amount of rabies vaccine there is a valid concern the immune system may not be stimulated enough to protect against future exposure to the virus.

Think about that….Think about that very seriously….Imagine your child or grandchild is bitten by a dog that has been vaccinated against rabies inappropriately and has not developed a good immune response to prevent rabies. Now, imagine that dog bit your child/grandchild after getting in a fight with a skunk, raccoon, or other rabies reservoir species, such as a bat or coyote, which no one knew about. You take your child/grandchild to the doctor. He asks if the dog was vaccinated. The answer is “yes”. Your doctor is now no longer worried about the risk of rabies because the vaccine is so effective when given in accordance with regulatory guidelines. He does not recommend treatment against possible rabies exposure. Your child/grandchild contracts rabies from the bite. Rabies is almost 100% fatal once clinical signs develop. Many people fail to understand, while rabies vaccine protects animals, the reasons the UDSA rules and the state laws are there are to ensure rabies vaccine given to pets protect the people around those pets.

Bottom line... there are NO reputble randomized clinical trial DATA supporting such practice. In fact, all credible testing indicates the precise opposite. There is a mountain of peer-reviewed research the supports full-dose vaccines across breeds in order to provide proper efficacy. The reverse argument categorically can NOT be made truthfully.

So spare us your use of such words as "Troll" when faced with those who would insist upon all the facts being made available. I understand that your heart is in the right place. But, that doesn't mean that your 'feelings' take precedent over long-established scientific FACTS. What you are disseminating, is reckless, scientifically innaccurate and extremely detrimental to the health of those who would take such advice (however well-intended it may be).

Scientific fact is just as often as not, highly counter-intuitive yet no less correct. And the vast majority of anti-vaccination 'reporting' tries desperately to make leaps of intuition in order to shoehorn conclusions into incomplete or lazy DATA sets. And every single "example" that you've posted (based on each one I've taken the time to properly examine) is simply replete with blatant incongruities, as even a cursory review of my posted links will confirm

I have no agenda, bar that of scientific veracity. I'll be the first one to acknowledge "good" science, should you some day provide actual examples.

_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Unfortunately today, given that most of the products we buy for our pets and family have dangerous ingredients, we consumers need to do our own at home science experiments.

Unless you use side-by-side blind tested control-groups with consistently producible results, accounting for all possible variables, what you did, is in no way, shape, or form "scientific". And it's a gross disservice to those you claim to be protecting by stating otherwise.

And just to illustrate the point, EVERYTHING in large enough doses is "toxic", but just because something contains poisonous or toxic ingredients, doesn't mean that it's harmful. Some poisons are chemically reactive, some are thermally reactive, others require other catalysts not present by way of normal digestive processes (e.g. - fruit seeds contain FAR more poison than you are likely to find in virtually any other processed food). Dangers from toxic or poisonous foods depend entirely upon medium delivery and quantity to be dangerous to humans and animals.

_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.